This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

Welcome aboard!

Welcome to the TARDIS Index File. We only take the best! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • Internal pages
  • External Wikipedia pages

Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes like this: ~~~~ , or use the button above the edit space that looks like a signature.

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a member of the TARDIS crew! If you have any questions, see the Help pages, add a question to one of the Forums or ask on my talk page. -- Tangerineduel (Talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010

Welcome backEdit

Welcome back, nice to hear from you and good luck in your future edits.----Skittles the hog--Talk 19:15, July 8, 2011 (UTC)


It probably wont work as wikia images are commonly faulty. This means that they may not save over each correctly and so the image will have to be changed anyway. However, you can easily edit it by hand at Template:Doctor_Who_Wiki/Comics, just upload each issue under a separate file name. DWM is up to date at the moment but DWA isn't. Hope this helped.----Skittles the hog--Talk 12:40, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Go to the link I posted above and edit it. You should be able to work it out from there. If not, message me again.----Skittles the hog--Talk 15:58, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

I will hold you to that :) ----Skittles the hog--Talk 16:05, July 9, 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance imagesEdit

Heya :) Thanks for your enquiry. I appreciate the frustration you may be experiencing in trying to replace maintenance images, but the lock is justified because the image has a technically precise usage. It may seem like you have a great new image, but unless you have considered the precise dimensions or transparency of your image, it may unexpectedly alter the template on which the image is used. The lock isn't in place to stop people replacing the image. It's just there to make people really think about what they're doing. I'm happy to change images, but it does need to be vetted for its technical suitability. Please post the image you'd like to replace the image with to my talk page, and I'll actively consider it for replacement.
czechout@fandom   17:10:04 Sat 09 Jul 2011 

Hi again :) Thanks for submitting your two new images. I've accepted and implemented one, but am rejecting the other. File:Virgin.png is obviously an improvement over File:Virgin logo.jpg inasmuch as Template:Virginbookcover is concerned. Obviously we want all these images to be transparent if possible. Problem is, though, it's only about 200px, which is too narrow for use at Virgin Books. file:Virgin logo.jpg was doing double duty as both the template logo and the article logo. So what I've done, for now, is change to your transparency for the template, but otherwise left the old logo intact. Obviously the best solution would be to make the original .jpg into a transparency, because it's a nice 400px wide, which allows it to be used in all situations.
The IDW logo is another matter entirely. I just flatly don't see it as an improvement over File:IDW Logo horizontal.jpg. Yes, it's nominally transparent, but what does it matter with a rectangle, really. Also, it's again too narrow for use on pages. From a design standpoint, it's better that the logo in a rectangular box like a license template be also rectangular. The current image can be used successfully in both the template and the page. So, yours, though more colorful, is just the wrong dimensions all round, I think.
Thanks very much for your submission, and please do keep 'em coming!
czechout@fandom   19:26:10 Sat 09 Jul 2011 
Nah, I don't like your latest.
I mean I get where you're coming from. It's transparent, so it'll kinda "pop". But it's just . . . boring. Plus, in this one instance transparency is overruled by the fact that a) there's the IDW light bulb device — which is cool — and b) the background of the current image ties in to the blues of the site generally, and the "glowy" license box specifically. What it lacks in transparency, it more than makes up for in its proud DW color scheme. So, no, nothing worth changing. Still, if you wanted to strip the background of the current logo and have a transparent version of it, I'd certainly take a look.
czechout@fandom   10:53:45 Sun 10 Jul 2011 
To keep ya in the loop, here's how the Virgin thing all went down. I deleted every red Virgin logo currently on the site. Then I changed the name of file:Virgin-500px.png to file:Virgin Logo.png. Since the dimensions were practically the same as the original file:Virgin.png that you uploaded, it slid right into the template fine, and I was able to use it on Virgin Books. One image, multiple uses. I then completely locked it down, added {{maintenance}} and {{promotional}} (since it's a logo), and there we are. Thanks for your hard work in improving this image. (Oh, for a while it'll look like there are blue links in this paragraph when there are none. The ghosts hang on, like in Silence in the Library. The only file remaining is file:Virgin Logo.png.)
czechout@fandom   12:09:15 Sun 10 Jul 2011 

Background imageEdit

You don't have the ability to physically change it yourself. Only admins can change it. This isn't our rule, but simply the way the Wikia software is set up. But you may certainly submit a proposal at Tardis:Background image submissions. Please follow the instructions at Help:Background images. Also, it must be themed around Torchwood: Miracle Day. (If you don't want to do a Torchwood image, that's cool. You can submit to a later quarter.) I look forward to your submission(s).
czechout@fandom   08:30:01 Sun 10 Jul 2011 


The Tardis:User rights article, which is located on the Tardis:Help page has some information to start and then the user rights page also has a link to a more specific Tardis:Questions and guide to requests for adminship. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:13, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Cite pics please Edit

When placing pics — especially those involving behind-the-scenes personnel such as Matthew Graham — it's extremely important to provide a citation, so that viewers know the origin of the pic. A good phraseology for such captions is "<subject> as he appeared on CON: Episode Name (or DOC: Documentary name)".

See examples at June Hudson, John Nathan-Turner, Ed Thomas and Michael Pickwoad — each of which have the citation done slightly differently so as to demonstrate the wide range of possible sentence structures. Point is, get the name of the episode/documentary/event in there, somehow, some way.

Thanks :)
czechout@fandom   15:33:45 Sat 16 Jul 2011 


I deleted the page you marked for deletion, but as CzechOut points out on MediaWiki:Community-corner and on the forums Forum:Categories always blue-links, even if uncreated the formerly redlinked categories actually show as blue now. So, those red, now blue links are on there as examples. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:12, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Apology for rudeness Edit

Sorry for just being rude to you in chat. I totally forgot that I could just start a private chat to continue my diagnostic session with user:MaraClarke. Congratulations on finishing the page you were excited about.
czechout@fandom   18:47:17 Sat 16 Jul 2011 

Best practices with main page images Edit

Thanks for your dedication in updating images on the main page. However, the method by which you're doing it needs to be amended, for technical reasons. You appear to have stopped the practice of simply adding the specific magazine cover file name to the appropriate line at Doctor Who Wiki/Comics. Instead, you've placed the line file:Dwm.jpg, for example, into the template, and are then updating that image every four weeks. That may at first seem like a terribly efficient thing to do, but it's got implications for server load. And you're just creating work for admins who will eventually have to come in and delete the past versions one by one. Which is a pain.

The bigger problem, though, is that there are occasions where the software that runs this wiki doesn't update changes automatically. Updates to pics can take hours, and sometimes days, to properly display. I know I waited around a week for the current version of JNT.jpg to show up, for instance.

Because the front page is advertising the latest stuff, we need to ensure instantaneous updates, 100% of the time. We can't be waiting around for the MediaWiki software to catch up. Therefore, I need you to suspend your current practices and return to the habit of putting the actual, numbered file (like Dwm-cover-422.jpg) back into the template. Changes need to be made to the template from here on out, not to a generic file name. Remember, the template is fully editable by registered users. And it's made convenient by the li'l "hand with pen" symbol near the bottom of each section of the main page. Best of all, once you get the hang of it, it's actually faster to cut and paste the new issue's file name into the template than it is to upload a new version of a file to file:Dwm.jpg.

Please let me know when you've changed over the current generic file names so that I can then delete file:Dwa.jpg, file:Dwm.jpg and whichever others you're currently using.

Thanks :)
czechout@fandom   17:32:06 Fri 22 Jul 2011 

Other Doctor Who Wikis Edit

No, we can't ask them to discontinue. However, these wikis are usually the creation of "rogue editors", if you will, who have broken away after taking a disliking to a certain aspect of this wiki. As you said, they are such low quality that they hardly constitute a threat.--Skittles the hog - talk 10:42, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Miracle Day backgroundEdit

After correcting your image for both kb size (remember, background images can be no bigger than 100kb) and px dimensions, I did indeed upload it. However, the whole wikia domain has been under attack today by a spambot (thus the odd messages you received earlier in the day). This has meant there's been a delay in the system accepting the upload. It appears to have finally "taken". Thanks for the effort of cleaning up what you saw to be a problem. I suppose I didn't consider it significant, just because the image quality is so low anyway, in order to meet the 100kb limit. To my eye, it looks like there are now vertical "stripes", whereas before they were horizontal. But that is preferable, even if equally "unnatural", because the image is vertically oriented. Thanks for sprucin' it up.  :)

I should of course tell you that the unexpectedly shortened gap between the two parts of series 6 means that Jack's side of the image will likely be replaced by someone from DW in a few weeks: Eyepatch Lady, River, Eleventh Doctor, Amy, Rory — someone. If you'd like to go ahead and prepare a replacement image for the last weekend in August, I'd be happy to look. Just to reiterate, though, we're only takin' down Jack at first. Rex stays until the end of the British run of Miracle Day.
czechout@fandom   21:02:45 Wed 27 Jul 2011 

p.s. Please remember that our signature policy requires two links in your signature — one to your user page and one to your talk page. The talk page link makes it a lot easier to talk to you. :) Also, do you need help in formally moving your name to user:BroadcastCorp from user:BroadcastCorp.? It's a bit confusing that BroadcastCorp is a redirect, rather than your actual name.
czechout@fandom   21:02:45 Wed 27 Jul 2011 

Adolf HitlerEdit

Why did you undo my edit? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clone gunner comanda jedi (talk • contribs) 07:48, 28 July, 2011 (UTC).

Standards Edit

Please abide by the minimum standards for production crew pages. These are immediately obvious if you use the "crew" or "actor" formats available from a drop down menu when creating articles. Thanks--Skittles the hog - talk 15:50, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


I'm currently reworking the featured article nominations. Take a look at User:Skittles the hog/Sandbox two. As for Utopia, under the current method, it would need to be voted for. Under the version I wish to implement, articles have to be up to standard. Any feedback on the link above would be appreciated.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:12, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

The lead is the text prior to the first heading. For examples of this, see: The Sea Devils, The Reign of Terror or The Leisure Hive. Nice to see you had a go at editing the sandbox. Where you have put support, could you please enter a reason. It doesn't really matter at the moment, but if this format is chosen, it would be a requirement. Thanks--Skittles the hog - talk 17:55, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't vote for it. I've already explained that I am reworking the featured article nominations because they just don't work. Articles like The Big Bang should never be featured, it's a complete mess.

In my opinion, the lead for Utopia could be so much better and there is plenty to write about. There are numerous other criticisms I have about the page, but that's why the new method is so much better; it sees improvements made to articles until they're great, rather than just picking the, because you like the episode or whatever. Have a go at writing the lead, you may enjoy it.--Skittles the hog - talk 10:42, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up your addition and sourced it, but it still needs some BTS information in the lead. So far, it's only dull narrative points. Bear in mind that there's no rush to get it featured, and it's unlikely it will be this August.--Skittles the hog - talk 11:03, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

At the least, there are other nominations for next month. Even my suggested version would have you waiting. Bear in mind, it doesn't matter how long it takes, you must have the article up to standard. Take a good look at the article as there's still plenty to be done.--Skittles the hog - talk 11:08, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure why you're asking me this. Again, they have to be voted to become featured. It's a stupid system, but that's the case.--Skittles the hog - talk 11:16, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Erm...that's what I'm trying to do. Remember, User:Skittles the hog/Sandbox two, you saw it! :)--Skittles the hog - talk 11:20, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Chat featureEdit

The chat feature is governed by the Tardis:Chat policy, where it does say that it shouldn't be used as an alternative to talk pages.

I don't think having it enable harms the wiki at the moment, we haven't found a use for it yet, though I think we would need to wait until the second half of Series 6 is broadcast to get a reading on whether it is useful, as that is when we'd have a lot more people editing at one time, and it's during that time that we might find a use for it. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:11, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Signatures and other thingsEdit

I'd suggest looking around, especially in our Tardis:Help page, where for instance the Tardis:Chat policy is located, and the Tardis:Signature policy and the Help:Signatures before leaving comments requesting help on user's talk pages, also, when uploading images for your own signature please keep in mind our Tardis:User image policy, which limits you to 3 user images (and also remember to select the user image tag when uploading otherwise the images will get deleted). Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:49, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Species stubEdit

Short answer: Thanks, but no. The "nude dude" is staying.

Long answer: We don't want to use an image of a recognised DWU species, taken from a screenshot, because then it'll send a mixed message. Your image makes it appear that it's a Silurian stub, not a general species stub. This image, from the very famous NASA Pioneer missions, is well known for its attempt to convey the nature of Earth's dominant species to extra-terrestrials the probes might encounter. (If you personally don't know about it, please click here.) The fact that the figure is nude immediately implies biological examination of the subject. It's therefore entirely appropriate for species pages, which often discuss the biological functions of various races.

However, the most basic reason for rejecting your image is a simple one. Look at all the other images, and consider what they all have in common. Practically none of them use in-universe images. The few that do like {{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} and {{character stub}} are using only the tiniest sliver of a frame — so tiny that most users won't necessarily recognise them as DWU images. And I'm debating changing them, anyway. Also, it's better for us if these stub images are in the public domain, anyway. It's a bit hard to argue that there's a fair-use rationale for a DWU image on a stub. So, thanks for going to the effort necessary to create a stub template image, but it's simply against the design ethos of the project.

As always, I'm not opposed to changing the site's more ubiquitous pics, but this Silurian image simply ain't the one for {{species stub}}.
czechout@fandom   15:11:19 Mon 01 Aug 2011 

User fix and signaturesEdit

Sorry, I can't use the bot to change each instance of user:BroadcastCorp. to user:BroadcastCorp. Doing so will create mass confusion, since it will make every forum thread, every talk page, every user talk page on which you've participated appear to have a new comment. I avoid using the bot in those namespaces unless it's absolutely necessary. This isn't at all necessary.

As for how to create signatures, including ones with fancy time stamps, please see Help:Signatures, as Tangerineduel advised, above.
czechout@fandom   15:27:35 Mon 01 Aug 2011 

RE: Don't Like Edit

Changed my mind. Yours Truly, Primeval13 (Talk To Me) 09:59, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Alienation of new and IP users. MM/Want to talk? 20:34, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Name Edit

Yeah sure, I was using Revanvolatrelundar as a signature for ages and then I thought it would be hard for people to read so I shortened it to Revan. Anyway, you're ok to call me Rev. Happy editing! --Revan\Talk 15:41, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Pic you want deletedEdit

Please explain in greater detail the error you say you're having. There ordinarily shouldn't be a problem in uploading a new version of a file. If you're having a problem doing that simple task, there may be a widespread technical error that needs to be addressed.
czechout@fandom   15:58:53 Sun 14 Aug 2011 

Yep, that's a perfect level of detail. Request denied. The MediaWiki software is working . . . well, let's just say as well as Wikia want it to. As explained above in the section "Best practices with main page images", the MediaWiki software sometimes simply fails to update quickly. It appears to be an error, because there are other times where it updates immediately. But there are times where you have to wait days for it to work its way out. From my own personal experience, deleting this file and restarting it with the same file name will have no effect, as the software is still waiting for the cache to update on that file. My advice would be to find the version of the file you truly want, upload the new version, and just wait. It'll work itself out.
czechout@fandom   16:10:39 Sun 14 Aug 2011 

Who playedEdit

The question you've posed Skittles is one that would best be placed on the Forum:Reference desk, as that's kinda what that portion of the Forum is for. It would also allow other users to see your question and therefore you'd get multiple people trying to get the answer. As asking and then prompting one admin may not get you any answers to your question(s). For future questions like this I'd suggest heading to the forums first. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 16:16, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, now: no one can "really need" an answer to the question of who played Einstein in Time and the Rani. Have you seen Time and the Rani? Serious answer, though, is that we simply don't know with certainty. Einstein never spoke, and so his performer was therefore an uncredited extra. (You actually got me to go back and check the credits for that dreadful serial. Thanks for that. Happy Sunday to you, too, pal.) Don't know how you'd go about tracking down such information from so late in the programme's run. It's somewhat easier for 1960s programmes, because someone wrote a reference book once upon a time that held that level of detail. I don't think it went as far as the Seventh Doctor's era, though. Were I you, I'd switch the infobox from "to be added" to "uncredited", as that's more accurate.
czechout@fandom   16:30:34 Sun 14 Aug 2011 

Ah, I see your question has already been answered, but just to summarise: he was little more than an extra and therefore went uncredited. I noticed that you pressured me for an answer half-an-hour after you posed the question. Give a guy a break.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:52, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

What??? This is the second time a message seems to have baffled you following on from my earlier rebuke. Are you feeling okay?--Skittles the hog - talk 16:57, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a personal attack. This is your third one by my count. It's always nice to get a perfectly friendly comment answered with sarcasm isn't it?--Skittles the hog - talk 17:03, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost choking on the irony of "don't accuse users of making personal attacks". As defined by Tardis:No personal attacks, you made what is known as an external personal attack. I purposely wrote that comment so that it was matter-of-fact, not a threat. By that I mean that I meant no offence.--Skittles the hog - talk 17:11, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Erm...your...great! :) --Skittles the hog - talk 17:17, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Edit

I'm philosophically opposed to placing people at rollback. I don't particularly see the point of that particular user level, which is different from saying that I don't understand the utility of the "administrative power of rollback". I tend to think that people who can be trusted with the power of rollback should just be trusted as full admin. After all, with rollback, there's no ability to leave a message explaining why you're doing what you're doing, and you can potentially erase quite useful intermediate revisions if you're not careful. I prefer people to use "undo" wherever possible, and to give clear reasons for the undo. Moreover, there's a question of whether we actually need a person at rollback at this time, given that we now have more active admin than at any time in the last three years. I haven't actually noticed a heck of a lot of vandalism of late.

As far as I know, we don't have anyone actively at rollback right now, and frankly, I'd just as soon revoke all the inactive users' rollback rights. However, Tangerineduel may have a different opinion on the matter. See what he says, and please enquire of him whether he'd like you to submit a formal nomination request at User rights nominations.

As to your statement that you've been here a long time, well, let's not get carried away. You've only been editing, under that name, since November. I'd prefer people to have a couple of seasons of DW under their belt before advancing to admin level, just so they get a sense of what the place is like when we're really pumping out a ton of new articles and are being visited by a lot of new users. Still, as an active participant in forum discussions and talk pages, and as a frequent contributor since November, you're on the right track. Your photographic eye is excellent, most of the time :), but I'd really like to see you tackle some bigger writing chores around here. Why don't you pick, say, a long-neglected companion or character who's appeared in multiple media, and do a top-down rewrite of the page? Really fill out the page with as much detail as you can possibly find. I'll take a look at your work, give you some pointers along the way, and we can start beefing up your basic editing skills.
czechout@fandom   17:27:09 Sun 14 Aug 2011 

Rollbacks rights I've found are more useful on extremely active wikis (or maybe just on Wikipedia), wikis that see constant vandalism, something we've not really seen, major spammers are often caught by the Wikia-Staff before they can do wiki wide damage.
CzechOut's point is very valid about giving reasons when undoing edits, and goes back to the Forum:Alienation of new and IP users thread, where we're often alienating people through admins' use of the rollback function.
I agree with CzechOut with regard to time spent, how many edits you've done and the quality and length of those is also important.
I think your edits are often good and I also agree with CzechOut that long edits are also good. As CzechOut says you're path to becoming a very good editor. And good non-admin editors are also a really good thing for a wiki to have, and in many cases will catch things that admins don't. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:54, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Series 6 Edit

The source does not say they would be called Closing Time and The Wedding they state they are rumoured. The source, which I got from DoctorWhoTv clearly states that they are rumours, ehcne the reason why I reverted them and added it to the rumours sections. With episodes titles, it is best to wait for a BBC source and use that as reference or site a website that sites the BBC source as your reference.

I was about to talk to you about this, but I caught up with a personal matter.

I would just like to add here That i apologise for how I made you feel about me blocking you in the past. I did not cause mean to cause you stress, but I had informed you on numerous times why I was reverting you edits, which you ignored. But it's good you came back and I'm glad you came back, you made some really fantastic edits since. As i said earlier, I'm sorry that I caused you stress and annoyance that I blocked you, and I shall make sure that from now on, I give Users a warning if I;m going to block them. Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 17:43, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

I did give a reason, as stated above. I never gave a reason when undoing because I used the roll back button. I'm sorry if it upset you, but I had my reasons. MM/Want to talk? 17:48, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Blocking review Edit

You are of course free to consult the administrative staff with concerns about administrative actions taken against you. However, this isn't like school, where the teaching staff share information about the pupils to whom they've given detention. Blocking of users is something that forms the least important fraction of my time here. Out of well over 100,000 edits, I've used the block function exactly 17 times — and a few of those were block reversals. So I'm hardly current with the "blocking news", as it were. I never knew you were blocked, so just saying "that stuff with Amy's Ganger" doesn't give me much of a clue as to where to begin a search.

I can only speak to what I see in the logs. You were apparently blocked for one week for adding false information — though, again, I have no idea what that false info might have been.

All I can tell you based on the little bit of info I have is that:

  • it doesn't seem terribly excessive — though I think I wouldn't have stopped you from editing your own talk page for that week
  • it was back on 29 May, so I have to wonder why you've waited three months to bring it up

The one thing I can definitively rule on is your objection that you weren't given a warning. To which I can only, and probably insensitively, say, tough. Blocks without warning are explicitly allowed by our blocking policy:

In most cases, users should be warned prior to blocking, though final discretion is left to the administrators.Our blocking policy
That means warnings are preferred — maybe even encouraged — but not necessary. And that "wiggle room" is there for good reason. If we had to wait to give a warning to a person who was in the midst of acts of clear vandalism, we'd have to endure a lot of damage before having the authority to act and stop the bugger. I don't find that Mini-mitch — who also has but a mere handful of blocking edits to his name — has a general pattern of blocking which is overly harsh. So, in the absence of the actual details of the case, I can find no circumstantial evidence to support a claim of admin abuse of power.

I would like to know, though, why this review has suddenly become so important to you now, a quarter of a year later.
czechout@fandom   19:24:26 Mon 15 Aug 2011 

Multiple imagesEdit

The Doctor's image is discussed more at length than Romana's and Rassilon's, whose are mentioned once or twice.

But, like the others no specific decision on how to deal with it was arrived at. The Master's is a slightly more complicated question than the others. --Tangerineduel / talk 18:03, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Another pic deletion? Edit

What are you talking about? You didn't specify a pic, but mentioned something about Eccleston, so I assume that it's not the same pic we were discussing earlier. I'll take a look at the pic if you give me a file name.
czechout@fandom   18:33:05 Sun 14 Aug 2011 

Again, request denied. Deleting a file's history with the aim of merely putting another picture in the exact same place won't solve the problem of slow updating. It'll actually make it update more slowly. The very fact that there's a ton of images in the history proves that the function is working, even if it's not updating quickly.
czechout@fandom   19:05:58 Sun 14 Aug 2011 
Also, if you're going to ask someone to look at a picture, please give them an actual link. That's done by typing a colon in front of the word "file". So [[:file:Pic.jpg]]. Thanks. :)
czechout@fandom   19:07:16 Sun 14 Aug 2011 

Two things Edit

Article protectionEdit

Please remember that adding {{Protect}} does not actually protect the page. Only an admin can do that, all the banner does is show that the page is protected. Since the Series 6 pages are no longer protected and anyone can edit them, there is no needed to added the "Protect" banner.

TV stubEdit

Also remember that if a television story is a stub, it is because there is a section with "to be added" somewhere in it. This makes the article a stub, hence the reason why The Doctor's Wife is a TV stub. Also, a section maybe incomplete (this may only be relevant to the plot, cast and crew sections), such as the crew section on The Curse of the Black Spot, so that page is a TV stub. I would advise you in future, before removing a TV stub tag, check the make to make sure no sections are still at the "to be added" stage and every section is a full as it can be.

Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 10:12, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Image filenames Edit

Please try to upload new versions of files over the original in future. The only time this can't be done is if the file extension is different. Doing this ensures there aren't loads of near-duplicates roaming around. If it doesn't update immediately, it doesn't mean it hasn't worked. Please be patient and allow the wikia to work its magic. Thanks--Skittles the hog - talk 09:15, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Warning: discussions must be preserved, not deletedEdit

You have removed an entire discussion from the wiki by altering both this page and my own user talk page. Please note that this is vandalism. You may not remove your comments from my talk page, nor may you remove mine from yours. The only reason I'm not blocking you for this very serious offence is because I honestly can't be bothered to do the tiny amount of research necessary to see whether it's the first time you've done it. Thus, because I've got better things to do 'round here, I'm going to assume you didn't know any better and request that you to read the vandalism policy.

In the conversation you deleted, you seemed most anxious that you had not received a warning before blocking. Consider this your one and only warning on violating our vandalism policy. I have also restored the deleted conversation, both on this page and my own user page, since you had no right to remove it.
czechout@fandom   16:04:54 Tue 16 Aug 2011 

Category exhibitionEdit

Just thought I'd drop a note on this. I'm against it, given that this wiki covers a lot of stuff and many pages don't have images. While displaying an image from the article in the category may seem like an interesting idea, as seen from Talk:The Master discussion an image can be a difficult thing, especially with our wiki that covers so much. Also having the images at the top of the category brings an extra level of a cluttered appearance to the category, which ideally should have a paragraph or two defining it followed by the category's structure. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:03, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'd just add my support to Tangerineduel's comments. The default form of category exhibition — that is, the one which happens without using the WikiaLabs enhancement — underpins the WikiaLabs add-on. It has been specifically suppressed by our CSS code. This means the WikiaLabs extension probably wouldn't work properly, even if it were turned on. As TD has pointed out, it's a feature of the Wikia skin that we've deliberately chosen to turn off. While it's true to say that many wikis have this feature enabled, it's also true to say that many of the big wikis, like w:c:memoryalpha, w:c:starwars, and w:c:fallout have it turned off. In other words, it's optional, and we've chosen not to exercise that option.
czechout@fandom   16:03:47 Mon 22 Aug 2011 

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:A second look at wiki achivements.
czechout@fandom   17:14:01 Mon 22 Aug 2011 

Re: Useless Speculation?! Edit

I remain by my original statement that the 'behind the scenes' sections are there for interesting and RELEVANT information to the subjects from the real world. Comparing the characters to the Rani and pointing out patterns in their appearances belong on The Howling or perhaps even the talk pages, but certainly not the behind-the-scenes section. I also took away some 'behind-the-scenes information' which states that the Nightmare Man is "seriously creepy" and that The Trickster looks "Very similar to Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series". In my opinion he doesn't look like Voldemort, and seeing as apparently the behind-the-scenes sections are a place for discussing opinions, I have the right to delete that kind of nonsense. I still left in lots of stuff, I just took at out the really uninteresting and unappealing fanwank and speculation. If you have a problem, please go to the Panopticon and I'd be happy to debate this issue with you there. Thank you! Bigredrabbit 00:34, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I'm not taking you seriously anymore. Bigredrabbit 02:53, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Banning words in chatEdit

I refer you to the chat policy. Rule #1 reads:

The main rule governing the public channel is that there shall be no personal attacks. Civility is required. It should also be remembered that kids from the age of 13 are able to use Wikia's systems freely. The administrators of this wiki can make no guarantee to users as to the suitability of the chatting environment for any particular age group, but we reserve the right to ban or kick anyone from chat for repeated and gratuitous foul language in the public channel. Simple, occasional cursing for emphasis or dramatic effect shall not be used as a rationale for kicking or banning.our chat policy
The incredibly common expression, "WTF" — to the extent that it even IS cursing — would not fall foul of this policy. We cannot and will not kick people from such a trivial reason.

I honestly don't mind clarifying policy, if you have a genuine question. I consider it an active part of my administrative responsibilities to explain why and how we do things around here. But please do read the policies before asking questions. Allow me to a put a list of them on your page so that you have them to hand:

czechout@fandom   18:20:39 Sat 27 Aug 2011 

Complaint lodged against you Edit

This is to inform you that a complaint has been lodged against you by user:Bigredrabbit in the matter of your discussion with him in the section above about removing useless speculation.

I've advised him — as I now advise you – that you are both incredibly close to the line of tardis:no personal attacks. Granted, there's no foul language exchanged her, but you both behaved in a manner that is against the spirit if not letter of that policy. Calling him a "hydroponic tomato" was a "workplace safe" sort of insult, which led him to remark that he wasn't taking you seriously, and vice versa. In other words, you both shot down useful discussion over the matter at hand. You might as well have cursed at each other and/or called each other inappropriate names. It would have had the same chilling effect on the conversation.

Please don't call people names, however mild, however much they might be suggested by their nick or signature. Please do keep focussed on the main topic of discussion.

You should know that this means I've essentially denied User:Bigredrabbit's request for me to "do something" about your behavior — because, again, I deem him equally at fault. That said, on the substantive issues at hand in your discussion — that is, on the matter of what he removed from your edits — I completely back him up. His initial response to you on 27 August was 100% sound. His reversion of your work was absolutely an improvement. If I'd been editing the page, his edits are exactly the ones I would have made myself.
czechout@fandom   15:41:14 Sun 28 Aug 2011 

Apology accepted. And I'm sorry too. :) The preceding comment was made by Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 05:51, August 29, 2011 (UTC)


Please do not add {{protect}} or {{lock}} to articles that aren't protected. This just confuses users and prevents them from making productive edits if they believe they cannot actually do so. Only admins can protect articles. This has been mentioned before, so please do not do it again.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:39, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Spacesuit vs spacesuit Edit

As it is not a proper noun, spacesuit should not be capitalised in the disambiguation brackets. This has been made clear to you, please do not move it again.--Skittles the hog - talk 17:38, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it was User:Tangerineduel who protected the page. Secondly, it has always been the case that words that are not proper nouns are not capitalised. By always, I mean as a universal rule. Please take extra care in future to abide by the policies this wiki has set out.--Skittles the hog - talk 17:52, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Proposed expansion templatesEdit

Request denied. Both already exist. See {{section stub}} and, really, any one of about 50 templates under category:stub templates and/or {{update}}. You may wish to explore category:templates and its subcats to familiarise yourself with our current templates.

Also, please note that it is generally considered bad form, though not explicitly against policy, to use really big fonts (more than about 200%, or 24 pt) on other people's talk pages. This is because it really eats up the screen real estate, forcing sections to take up much more vertical space than they need to.
czechout@fandom   18:14:28 Sun 28 Aug 2011 

Multiply images Edit

Please do not upload multiply versions of the same image. It just adds to the amount of unused images and can slow the server down. Please use the "Upload a new version of this image" button if you are unhappy with the images you have upload. Thanks. MM/Want to talk? 16:04, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Get creative Edit

Please stop uploading images identical in design to the one at the Master. Not only does this make your image boring, but it de-values the ones that already exist. I have changed the one at Borusa, but it appears you have now created one of Rassilon.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:43, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

This is your final warning about both this, and for your habit of uploading images you never use that are near identical/superseded.--Skittles the hog - talk 07:30, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not here to delete images that you are deliberately uploading twice.As for getting creative, you haven't. The images you are uploading are low quality, built with no knowledge of the character and of the same design as the one used at the Master and River Song.--Skittles the hog - talk 07:35, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'll put this plain and simple for you. Please create original images. The current ones are just rehashes. Don't upload these images again.--Skittles the hog - talk 07:40, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack Edit

You have made another personal attack. This is the fourth by my count and it was directed at me this time. Personally, I think this should result in a block but obviously I don't want it to seem as if I'm killing the competition.--Skittles the hog - talk 08:23, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course I don't want to you blocked. Just keep to our policies and no one will block you.--Skittles the hog - talk 09:14, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Chat banEdit

You were verging on racist to him in your private chat with him, which spilled into the main chat area.

He did warn you in the main chat area, in front of at least 3 admins who were watching the main chat area.

What was said in the chat was:

CzechOut: if you again complain about cursing for emphasis in this chat room
you will be permanently banned from it

To which you replied:

BroadcastCorp: right. okay. fine.
Read DWM?

That you 'forgot' isn't a valid reason, you were warned and acknowledged the warning, and you did actually ask later to be banned, in the main chat area as well.

BroadcastCorp: Can you chat ban me. I find chatting boring.

The time between you being warned and then breaking the agreement was less than 30 minutes.

None of the admins dislike anyone, we're all fairly indifferent, admins tend not to hold grudges as we're often targets for attack and abuse.

I was watching the main chat area throughout all your time there when CzechOut was responding and I didn't see anywhere that he said he'd block you if you complained.

The chat block period will be about a week, so it's not a permanent ban. As has often been said, we encourage you to edit and participate within the wiki community, just be aware of the policies in place.

I hope this addresses your issues. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:29, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I have had multiple heated long discussions with CzechOut in the past and I've never found him "cold and bitter" as you describe him on his talk page.
To be an admin you need a fairly neutral disposition when it comes to users. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:36, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
You agreed to the agreement in the chat that you wouldn't get annoyed over "cursing" you did and then you requested to be banned. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:43, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
You must also abide by the policies on this wiki. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:48, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
How? As far as I can see he hasn't offended any of our policies.
CzechOut pretty much sticks to the policies very strongly. --Tangerineduel / talk 17:54, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
He did not offend the policies in place on this wiki.
Again I have to say CzechOut pretty much always gives reasoned statements for everything he does and like all admins is calm and neutral in his dealings. --Tangerineduel / talk 18:00, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Just to add a little to this, since you also posted on my user talk page, I should point out that I didn't actually chatban you. The logs show that Skittles the hog was the actual banning administrator. No one prompted him so to do — except, of course, you. When you requested the ban, he simply complied with your request.
Of course, this is not to say that I wouldn't have banned you. Every admin in the room was consulted and everyone agreed that you had been warned, you had agreed to be chatbanned if you again brought up the issue of swearing, and that you had, nevertheless, done so. I should also point out that even though you agreed to receive a permanent chat ban — as Tangerineduel has pointed out by cutting and pasting the relevant portions of the conversation — your block time will be approximately a week. I say approximately because chatbanning is not automatically controlled and someone has to remember to physically lift your ban. We will lift your ban at a time of our choosing next Friday or Saturday. Please do not pester us to remove the block until it is 0000 (UTC) 11 Sept 2011.
As for your plea to unblock you, no, not gonna do that. Your post clearly reveals that you still don't get why you were blocked. It's really quite remarkable, your message. Immediately after requesting to be unblock, you go and violate the terms of the agreement that got you blocked in the first place. You're still pushing your views of what's "appropriate" language by directing me to the NZ "decency" board (or whatever it is). Absolutely remarkable.
Maybe it would help if I explained the rationale for rule 1. A rule which makes any cursing a banable offense simply cannot be administrated. We'd have to formally define what constitutes swearing, which is extremely difficult on a site that has such a diverse collection of native English speakers, as well as a number of people who speak other languages. If we were going to fairly administrate an absolute no-cursing ban, we'd have to find a central database of curses, make that our standard, then educate ourselves in what's allowed and what's not allowed. We'd also have to have some sort of exemption for discussing the use of strong language in Doctor Who fiction. I mean, if Doctor Who texts, like Transit contain wide usage of curse words then can we reasonably say that we can't use that curse word when using chat to discuss editing of the Transit page? I think you'll agree that would be a nightmare of administrative complexity. Then there's just the widely varying standards that individuals have. "Bloody" is in no way an American curse word, and in fact many Americans use it in place of curse words to be milder with their language. Some British people, however, would be offended by the word. Others find it very mild, including BBC Wales writers, who have occasionally had the televised Doctor say it.
No, the issues of simply defining cursing make it impossible to worry about simple, occasional cursing. So, although you're trying to portray yourself as "fighting the power" and "protesting bad policy", the truth is somewhat different. You're effectively shouting at your dog for crappin' on your foot. It's not pleasant, but it's one of the realities of pet ownership. Every now and again, there's a little "present" you could do without. The history of banning for content is something with a long and entirely unsuccessful history. And the people who have tried have always been on the wrong side of history — like, I dunno, Hitler. It is simply not possible to legislate the use of language in any real, meaningful or fair way.
Moreover, if we attempt to say that all cursing is banned, then there will inevitably be one person who is able to curse without punishment. Then the policy will be immediately exposed as a nonsense. Either we make it our mission in life to be on chat 24/7 and ban everyone who curses in the slightest, or we specifically say that it's okay to curse, but encourage people to try to avoid it except for emphasis. I know which option is a hell of a lot easier to administrate, and I suspect that you do, too. Any good rule is first and foremost enforceable.
To sum it all up, the policy, as written, is the most practical one possible. It will not change. Please stop bringing it up. Your objection has been noted, carefully considered, and answered on several occasions by multiple admin. You've received a more-than-fair hearing on the point. Drop it.
czechout@fandom   00:48:31 Sat 03 Sep 2011 

Please concentrate on adding new pictures to the site Edit

In trying to understand what's been causing the tremendous lag between uploading a new version of file from showing up, I've been advised that one big cause of the problem is a behavior that you're exhibiting. I need to ask you to stop that behavior for the good of the wiki. Apparently, a lot of simultaneous new versions of files only adds to the queue and therefore slows up the changeover process.

A simple audit of your recent uploads reveals that you, overwhelmingly, prefer to upload new versions of old pictures. In the almost 50 cases that exist since only 1 August exactly none of those new versions have truly been necessary. Please remember that bigger is not better. We're not trying to get perfect quality pics here. We're trying to get pics which adequately illustrate the subject at 250px.. And this doesn't even include the number of times where you've given up on waiting for the system to update a pic, and instead have just uploaded a different file of essentially the same shot.

As an example of what I'm talking about, let's look at your version of the 2010 Proms title card. I pick this not because I was the uploader of the original version, but merely because it's amongst your most recent changes. Your version did precisely nothing to improve the quality of the image as it is most commonly displayed on most users' load of that page. At 250px, there is no appreciable difference between your pic and my pic. Instead you've got a much bigger pic which means that it will load more slowly on some computers. The file size tripled from 44kb to a whopping 153kb. Now, in a world where hard disks are measured in TB, it might seem strange to be worrying about mere KB. But don't forget that internet speed is at best measured in MB, not GB or TB. Many residential customers still have download speeds best measured in KB.

I believe on user:darrendw's page you used the phrase, "HD and divine" to describe the superiority of your work. The truth is, you should think of it as "HD and slowing down page loads to a crawl for some users". I know it's tempting to believe that HD images are better than standard ones, but you must always remember the primary purpose of a picture on this site. And that's to appear in a space no bigger than 250px. At that width, there is no difference between an HD and a SD pic to most people's eyes.

Wikia have therefore set a good, reasonable file-size limit of 100kb for a number of types of picture uploads, particularly those pictures seen on every page. Indeed, the background you see on this page must be less than 100kb, When uploading a new version of a pic, you must therefore consider, "Is the increase in the file size actually going to improve this picture when viewed at 250px"? If the answer is "no", do not upload a new version of the file. Of course, if there is a material difference in the way your new version actually appears on the page, and you're not significantly adding to the file size, you may certainly upload a new version. For instance, an area of wiki illustration that does call out for improvement are the pictures from "classic DW" derived from VHS. In cases where DVDs now exist, it would be perfectly acceptable to replace a grainy VHS image with a crisper DVD image.

However, it would still be preferred if, for the next month, you could please give our cache a break. Suspend your efforts at uploading different versions of pictures that already exist here. Please apply your energies towards adding pictures to pages that are not yet illustrated. There are literally thousands of character pages that have no pictures. Many story pages have plot section which are inadequately illustrated. On the whole it would be much better if you could please stop trying to "correct" other people's images and spend some time giving us brand new pictures. Thanks :)
czechout@fandom   14:56:57 Sat 03 Sep 2011 

Well, since you've asked, "liking" your pictures doesn't come into it. Except that I don't like the fact that you're wasting Mini-mitch's time by littering the joint with pictures well over 1MB in size that he has to then delete. Except that I don't like the fact that you're making completely ordinary page loads take longer than is necessary for no increase in quality which the human eye can actually detect. Except that I don't like having to wait for a materially new version of an image to update, because you've jammed up the queue with your own insignificant revisions.
You do have a good eye for cropping pics, so I suppose I often enjoy the composition of your uploads. But if you're going to continue to be a major uploader of pictures, you've got to balance that talent against the very practical, technical limitations that any website faces.
czechout@fandom   15:32:24 Sat 03 Sep 2011 
Yes, your images are almost always more than 1000px wide. This needs to stop. Given that pics are usually displayed at no more than 250px, anything more than five times that is obvious excess. Most of the time, 600px width and <100mb size are good numbers to shoot for. These dimensions allow for sufficient detail when blown up and don't overburden anyone's page load time.
czechout@fandom   16:17:13 Sat 03 Sep 2011 
Obviously a combinative pic is a bit of an exception. You can't fully represent five different pictures in one without going to a larger-than-normal size. And I'm not saying you will never find huge-dimensioned pictures on the site. What I'm saying is that you should carefully consider whether it's worth it to increase the file size and dimension of the average, standard, singular infobox pic just because it's "HD and divine". Again, bigger isn't better. Bigger brings with it problems of page loading. Please don't try to pick apart this request — which is not just coming from me, but Skittles the hog, Mini-mitch and Tangerineduel, all of whom have noted the excesses of your pic sizes — by finding individual exceptions which exist on the wiki.
There will come a time when I institute a bot-assisted solution to the problem of big pics, and then this whole notion will be strictly enforced. Until then, please just be reasonable in your pic uploads and follow the guidelines set forth here.
czechout@fandom   17:41:08 Sat 03 Sep 2011 

Block Edit

Please note you have undid my edit to Night Terrors three times now. This is a violation of the T:NO WARS. If you do this again, you will be blocked for 2-3 hours so you can 'cool-down'. Thank you. MM/Want to talk? 19:58, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Not good enough. You cannot go around breaking policies to suit you own end. You have now been blocked for 2 hours so you can think about your actions - you can still edit your talk page.
I am really annoyed that several Users have warned you about replacing images and yet you still continue to do it. CzechOut asked you to upload images for page that have no images because you had a good eye for cropping images, and instead of going "That's a good idea, I'll do that. Thank you for suggesting this and telling me I'm good at cropping images", you decided to breach the edit war policy by wanting your image as the infobox picture. Your images showed nothing about the episode, which only last week you had a go at another User for. This to me, is hypocritical and unacceptable.
Yes you can say sorry over and over but sometimes it's not good enough.
Broadcast, you are a good editor, but you cannot go around and behave like you have been the last few weeks. It's not acceptable. Thank you. MM/Want to talk? 20:14, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?.

czechout@fandom   04:31: Tue 20 Dec 2011 

Your input is needed!

You are invited to join the discussion at Forum:Can we disable visual editor please?.

czechout@fandom   18:33: Thu 22 Dec 2011 

Christmas cheer Edit

Happy holidays!

As this fiftieth anniversary year comes to a close, we here at Tardis just want to thank you for being a part of our community — even if you haven't edited here in a while. If you have edited with us this year, then thanks for all your hard work.

This year has seen an impressive amount of growth. We've added about 11,000 pages this year, which is frankly incredible for a wiki this big. November was predictably one of the busiest months we've ever had: over 500 unique editors pitched in. It was the highest number of editors in wiki history for a year in which only one programme in the DWU was active. And our viewing stats have been through the roof. We've averaged well over 2 million page views each week for the last two months, with some weeks seeing over 4 million views!

We've received an unprecedented level of support from Wikia Staff, resulting in all sorts of new goodies and productive new relationships. And we've recently decided to lift almost every block we've ever made so as to allow most everyone a second chance to be part of our community.

2014 promises to build on this year's foundations, especially since we've got a full, unbroken series coming up — something that hasn't happened since 2011. We hope you'll stick with us — or return to the Tardis — so that you can be a part of the fun!

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.